Aldrin André Huamán-Mendoza, Guilherme Castro Lima Silva do Amaral, Nathalia Vilela, Casimira Valeria Chuquimez-Ventura, Emanuel Silva Rovai, Giuseppe Alexandre Romito, Claudio Mendes Pannuti, Cristina Cunha Villar, Marinella Holzhausen
{"title":"Potential Biomarkers Indicating Resistance or Resilience in Experimental Peri-Implant Mucositis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Aldrin André Huamán-Mendoza, Guilherme Castro Lima Silva do Amaral, Nathalia Vilela, Casimira Valeria Chuquimez-Ventura, Emanuel Silva Rovai, Giuseppe Alexandre Romito, Claudio Mendes Pannuti, Cristina Cunha Villar, Marinella Holzhausen","doi":"10.1111/clr.14427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify changes in immunological, microbiological, and histological biomarkers that may indicate resistance during the induction phase and resilience during the resolution phase of experimental peri-implant mucositis (PiM).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and LILACS databases. Prospective interventional studies assessing biomarkers during experimental PiM were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. The GRADE approach was used to determine the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven out of 6008 studies were included. Clinical parameters (mPI and mGI) effectively characterized the experimental PiM model. Due to methodological variability and conflicting results, a definitive interpretation of microbiological and histological biomarkers was not possible. The meta-analysis revealed that IL-1β and the volume of peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) indicated non-resistance during the induction phase. In contrast, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, MMP-8, and IFN-γ remained stable. Regarding the resolution phase, IL-1β returned to baseline levels (SMD: 1.13; 95% CI: -0.81, 3.06), and the volume of PICF (MD: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.13) remained significantly elevated compared to day 0. However, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, MMP-8, and IFN-γ did not significantly differ from baseline levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Moderate to very low evidence suggested that the biomarkers IL-1β and the volume of PICF indicated a lack of resistance while suggesting resilience and non-resilience, respectively. The biomarkers TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, MMP-8, and IFN-γ demonstrated resistance and resilience.</p>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14427","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To identify changes in immunological, microbiological, and histological biomarkers that may indicate resistance during the induction phase and resilience during the resolution phase of experimental peri-implant mucositis (PiM).
Materials and methods: The search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and LILACS databases. Prospective interventional studies assessing biomarkers during experimental PiM were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. The GRADE approach was used to determine the certainty of evidence.
Results: Eleven out of 6008 studies were included. Clinical parameters (mPI and mGI) effectively characterized the experimental PiM model. Due to methodological variability and conflicting results, a definitive interpretation of microbiological and histological biomarkers was not possible. The meta-analysis revealed that IL-1β and the volume of peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) indicated non-resistance during the induction phase. In contrast, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, MMP-8, and IFN-γ remained stable. Regarding the resolution phase, IL-1β returned to baseline levels (SMD: 1.13; 95% CI: -0.81, 3.06), and the volume of PICF (MD: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.13) remained significantly elevated compared to day 0. However, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, MMP-8, and IFN-γ did not significantly differ from baseline levels.
Conclusions: Moderate to very low evidence suggested that the biomarkers IL-1β and the volume of PICF indicated a lack of resistance while suggesting resilience and non-resilience, respectively. The biomarkers TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, MMP-8, and IFN-γ demonstrated resistance and resilience.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.